On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:37:25 GMT, ah wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:12:23 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:25:37 GMT, ah wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:01:42 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:47:32 GMT, ah wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:11:58 +0100, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:53:02 GMT, ah wrote:

Hold that wallet a bit until you're su

most "slowness" is because of the storage-bus bottleneck.

You could have 5 terabytes of storage accessible by a
liquid-nitrogen-cooled 14CPU system, but still get the
responsiveness of a 80386.

Of course, XP is a bottleneck in, and of, itself.

I removed the storage bottleneck. Four 250MB 7200rpm drives
connected to a £250 3ware 66MHz/64bit PCI RAID card. The
processors can't write data that fast!

Besides I have 2GB of RAM, soon to be 3GB.

Try SCSI 320.

I don't have THAT many credit cards. How much for a terrabyte of SCSI
disks?

Probably about £4,000

It's a stupid price. And people keep telling me it ain't a lot better
than IDE. It most definitely is not worth the price. You'd be better
getting more of the IDE stuiff for the same price, and ending up with a
higher capacity, and more drives to put on a bigger raid.

I'm making the switch when I can . . . it's the only bottleneck I know.

A real ****er, if you ask me.

Switching TO scsi?


--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 16 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, Managers are from Uranus.